Meta

Posts Tagged ‘EDA’

Liz and I sat down with Riko Radojcic of Qualcomm to hear his thoughts on how upcoming 3D design and manufacturing would affect the EDA world. Naturally, the conversation morphed into a discussion about standards that will be required to make 3D adoption pervasive.

Liz: Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to sit down with us, Riko. So let me ask you, what is the relevance or importance of standards in adopting 3D?

Riko: Well, first, let me make a general statement about standards. Sometimes some of the EDA companies view proprietary formats as a source of competitive advantage – a way of locking in a customer base. This is especially true when a given company has taken a lead with a given solution, and they fear that opening up a proprietary format would shrink their slice of the market pie. However, in general, design standards, or standard exchange formats, or standard models, tend to make the whole pie bigger, as opposed to affecting the size of any one’s slice of the pie. So, in the long run, standards are good for users, like Qualcomm, and for vendors, like the EDA companies. I keep referring back to the industry experience with SPICE models and the transition from the proprietary ‘Level 28’ model to the open standard BSim generation of models. I think with all the brilliance of hindsight, the industry has benefited from an open standard model.

For 3D technology specifically, we are promoting the concept of standards, in order to accelerate the adoption of 3D design and manufacturing methods. We want to help to line up the supply chain behind the 3D technology. I would say that most people – users, industry observers, EDA vendors, etc. all perceive 3D technology as a disruptive change. The fear of that change is part of the barrier to adoption. Standards are the other side of this coin of fear. They bring down the feeling of fear.

Ed: Is 3D more a barrier to standards? Are we sabotaging our own efforts?

Riko: There is a lot of FUD in 3D. It is important to realize that there is 3D and then there is 3D. Some future 3D implementations – like stacking logic on logic – does require disruptive change in design tools. We will need design methodologies and tools that comprehend entirely a new dimension of parameters for this class of designs, and until these are developed, standards may even be a bit of a barrier.

On the other hand, 3D in the short term means heterogeneous stacking, like memory on top of logic. So right now, 3D is not that disruptive. We only need some minor upgrades to design logic in a smart way, to make stacking DRAM on top of it easier and lower risk. For this class of designs, standards would be extremely helpful – having a standard exchange format so that we have relevant information about die A when designing die B or vice versa would be excellent. For example designing power distribution network on die A needs to know about power demands on die B.

To accelerate and facilitate adoption, we need more design information. JEDEC for example is doing a nice job of working on the standards for memories

Liz: What is JEDEC doing?

JEDEC is defining the pin assignment and the pin array configuration required for Wide IO DRAM memories to be stacked on logic die.

Ed: What of vendors’ fears that buying into this format will be giving away too much of their own design data?

Riko: We can all make an investment in a standard format that can provide the right characteristics without exposing too much information. The emphasis is on format, rather than specific content – which should be proprietary. Again I like to refer back to SPICE and BSim models – where the model format, units, etc. are standardized, but the specific coefficients in the model are proprietary information of whoever owns the process technology.

Liz: Why is this not happening now?

Riko: We are all driven by financial motives. No one feels they will make enough money out of it right now – and this is especially true for standards, which, by definition, belong to everybody. However, there could be certain advantages for someone creating a standard and then giving it away. If you make the rules, you have a better chance of winning the game.

The thing that is required is a series of standard ‘exchange formats’ that would communicate the necessary information about the design of the various die to be stacked, such that 3D stacking of these die is a low risk enterprise. Basically to communicate design attributes such as power demand characteristics, thermal and mechanical stress sensitivities, maybe some floorplanning restrictions, etc..

Most of the standards bodies don’t have the capability to develop such standards. They have mechanisms to review a proposed standard and to manage and distribute it afterwards – but not to do the engineering required to develop one. So, there’s a lack of champions willing to put in the work to develop and promote a standard. It could be an EDA company, like Apache, or it could be an institution, like IMEC, or it could be an academic entity.

There are some activities going on, though. IMEC is working with Atrenta to develop a PathFinding tool – which may also involve developing a PathFinding exchange format. Apache has taken the lead in pushing a standard power exchange format for 3D. Perhaps some of the academics could be engaged to develop standard exchange format proposals? Si2 is willing to take a role in managing the standards, but someone needs to give them something to standardize. GSA is active and willing to coordinate the discussions. But someone needs to make a proposal so the industry can say “I like it” or “I don’t like it” or whatever.

Liz: So you are looking for another EDA guy to come up to the plate, and then what if someone like Cadence comes up with a competing idea? Then what?

Riko: Once a product is developed, all the EDA companies are invested in one format or another. We want to get these standards in front of the product development curve, so that it would be easier for any one company to adopt and comply with a standard, rather than making up their own format. This is where the users – such as Qualcomm – come in. We have the responsibility to demand this.

Ed: So it sounds like so far, we have a lot of discussion, but to a certain extent, some organizations are waiting for others to discuss or define a proposed set of 3D standards. Other organizations are waiting for that proposal to get adopted before implementing the 3D standards. How do we get off this merry-go-round?

Riko: I would say, let’s take a stab at partitioning the effort. Qualcomm proposed this last September, at a SEMI/Sematech sponsored meeting in Taiwan. We proposed dividing the world into two buckets…one set of players and activities focused on design related standards, and another for manufacturing related standards. For each bucket of standard related activities, we proposed a suitable existing standards body, a suitable forum for discussion, and a suitable set of champions who would propose appropriate standards. In the manufacturing domain, it would make sense to use SEMI to manage the standards, and Sematech to provide the Proposals. In the design domain it would make sense to use Si2 to manage the standards, and EDA or academics that are involved with EDA to provide the proposals. That way there would be less overlap and hopefully fewer gaps

Liz: What would happen then?

Riko: In addition, we proposed to create a forum which would be conducive to exploring and kicking around some of the proposed standards. Standards bodies, by definition have a formal review and balloting mechanism – which tends to be slow. So, in order to accelerate the discussion a separate forum would be nice. The Sematech 3D Enablement Center is doing this already for manufacturing-oriented standards. Let’s work with GSA to create a forum to discuss design-oriented standards, and if (or when) a given proposal is flushed out, give it to Si2 to create a true standard.

Liz: Your 2011 hope or wish for 3D standards?

Riko: That our industry can actually define a standard without having to fight a turf war. We can do this if we get ahead of the 3D product curve. But only if we all pitch in.. .

Riko Radojcic, who has over 25 years in the semiconductor industry, is a Director of Engineering at Qualcomm, currently leading the Design-for-Through Silicon Stacking Initiatives.

Last week, I had a running e-conversation with several folks – from academia, the angel community, bloggers, reporters analysts – about what new EDA and IP startups were out there. “New” being less than a year old.

One person more or less said, “aren’t you working with a new prototyping startup? That’s about the last one I’ve heard of.” Another person, the academician, said that there were none, that the startup groundswell was in cleantech and software apps. No one could think of a single “new” startup in our space.

Why? Not why they can’t think of any new startups, but why none are out there or are so hidden that this group knows of none?

Lots of reasons come to mind. Yeah, the big guys offer all-you-can-eat licenses and crowd out the opportunity for startup point tools; the financial community doesn’t see a decent ROI and don’t fund EDA and IP (although it looks like EDA can once again utter “IPO” without derisive eyeballs rolling); EDA is mature and there’s only incremental improvements to be made, thus no great leaps any longer.

So are we wrong? Are there new startups out there? What technology areas?

Continuing with my conversation with Tom Kozas, president of CADmazing Solutions, I asked him about a hypothetical scenario:

Ed: So Tom, what would happen if for some reason, the big three EDA vendors all went away? So instead of Cadence, Mentor, Synopsys, the biggest three would be Magma, Apache? Atrenta?

Tom: I think this raises even more questions.

Ed: Hmmm…interesting. What questions?

Tom: Several come to mind: Would this mean renewed growth for the industry? Would the fundamentals change that encourage investment in new startups? Would the design flows become more or less integrated, collaborative, and global?

Ed: Ok, good questions to ponder. So what would be THE big issue?

Tom: The “Silicon” in Silicon Valley is missing. Without investment in new semiconductor startups, growth simply won’t happen. Virtually all new design starts are happening within the big systems and semiconductor companies which means the only way to grow an EDA company, is to steal market share.

But would this translate to increased value for the remaining EDA companies in the eyes of the financial community? What’s interesting about this hypothetical is, even though it would put the remaining EDA companies in a position to take advantage of this opportunity they might not be able to.

Ed: Just to play devil’s advocate, why wouldn’t that next set of players, whoever they are, be able to take advantage of the sudden disappearance of the big three? And who do you consider to be that next set of players?

Tom: Good questions. But let me respond by saying what they will need to provide.

So, the next big three will have products that have great user interfaces, provide online collaboration, and be part of a new ecosystem that enables innovation. The industry already has advanced technology but needs graphical and command-line interfaces that exploit the online design environment.

Second, designers don’t necessarily sit in the same building but often have to work on the same problem. For example, two or more designers should be able to share the timing database and bring up the same timing path without having to rerun static timing analysis and do it within minutes no matter where they are in the world.

Finally, the current EDA ecosystem is in the dark ages, there needs to be a new model that facilitates new algorithm and tool development with a reward system.

Ken Brock is the Product Marketing Manager for DesignWare Logic Libraries at Synopsys. Ken shared with us here his view of the trends he sees for the future of semiconductor IP.

What Does the Future Hold for Semiconductor IP?

The marketplace for semiconductor IP (SIP) continues to grow at double digit rates. According to Gartner Dataquest, the number of third-party semiconductor design IP blocks in an average chip design will double from the current level and the SIP market will reach $2.3B in 2014. IBS and Semico believe the SIP market will be greater than $3 billion in 2014.

We see six major trends in IP:

Convergence: The increased demand for “Smart” consumer electronics is driving more features and functionality into a single device such as the latest craze in tablets shown at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES). This trend is causing significant changes in SoC designs in areas such as power and performance requirements that drive technology node migrations, and in increased clock frequencies to keep up with bandwidth needs.

Core versus Context: Does this function differentiate the SoC? Interfaces like PCI Express® and USB have to work but they don’t generally differentiate the SoC. As an IP vendor, we see many different applications spaces for our IP and we have to ensure that IP works over a broad range of configurations and products.

Fab-outsourcing: More outsourcing of manufacturing means more opportunity for customers to use off-the-shelf IP to meet their design requirements, and more demand for IP vendors to create high-quality IP on the most advanced process nodes.

Power, Performance, Area: As many semiconductor designs compete for the key sockets, having the fastest performance, lowest power and smallest area is often a key differentiator of the design with respect to processor performance, battery life, packaging cost and silicon cost. Choices of foundation IP (memory and logic) providers make a big difference between winners and also-rans.

Consumer-driven schedules: Shorter time-to-market and more features means that designers need to de-risk schedules by using high-quality IP solutions that have been proven time and time again in the market place.

Expense control: It is often less expensive for companies to buy third-party IP than to develop it themselves. This is particularly true in advanced nodes where the complexity of IP development increases rapidly with increasing data rates, restricted design rules and increasing variability. As an example, our estimate is that a 28nm standard cell and memory IP platform is at least five to 10 times as complex to design and verify as compared to a similar platform at 40nm.

With these trends as the backdrop, we see significant shifts in the SIP market as it continues to evolve during the next five years:

Most SoCs will have about 70 to 80 percent of their functionality in reused IP (internal and/or 3rd party). The majority of these IP blocks will be memories with thousands of instances per chip all connected with a variety of standard cell configurations. Optimized standard cells and memories can significantly impact the performance, power and area of a SoC.

Individual IP products will yield to more complex IP subsystems. These subsystems will include application-specific blocks and software. IP integration services will become increasingly important to validate the IP in the system context.

Multi-core designs will drive increasingly complex architectures. A virtual prototype of the IP and the larger SoC will enable earlier and more efficient development of application software and middleware.

This is a pivotal time for the semiconductor IP industry as companies strive to develop the best solutions to help designers accelerate their time from concept to implementation. These solutions generate value throughout the design chain by accelerating hardware/software integration and systems validation, allowing efficient SoC architecture exploration and optimization, creating and optimizing functional blocks, and using high-quality semiconductor IP. Designers are turning to trusted third-party SIP solutions to help integrate advanced functionality with the least amount of risk. Winners will choose wisely.

Liz and I attended a panel at DesignCon that asked the question: what are you doing about the chip killers that delay your tapeout? That’s an intriguing, possibly unanswerable thought, since we’ve asked that question virtually since EDA’s inception. Ed Sperling of Systems-Level Design moderated the panel which had on it: Sunil Malkani of Broadcom, Ravi Damaraju of Juniper, Ramon Macias of NetLogic, John Busco of NVIDIA and Bernard Murphy of Atrenta.

Sperling moderated a lively discussion; questions that he or the panelists or audience posed highlighted the ongoing nature, or unanswerability of the topic. Some were:

• As designers and design managers, what keeps you up at night?

• If your design has to finish in half the time that your previous project took, do you start with a [design methodology and flow] clean slate?

• How do you get hardware and software engineers to work together?

• What’s good enough to get the design out the door?

• How do you define failure?

• What’s the price of failure?

• Who owns quality?

• What do you do when your next project is 4X the size of your last design? Throw people at it? Make the tools do more? Run faster? How?

• How do I turn around a design in a month and get all of these [now-required] apps on it?

• Why does place & route have to be flat?

• When will P&R, timing analysis have to break down the design hierarchically?

• How can verification be improved so that its pessimistic estimates won’t require designers to over-design?

The panelists all bemoaned the dueling standards that plague EDA, attributing them to companies wanting to gain marketing advantage, to the detriment of EDA users.

Sperling will publish a transcript of this panel in a future issue of System-Level Design. Nic Mokhoff published a summary of the panel the next day.

Finally, I have a question: why does DesignCon schedule a management-level panel on a day when the exhibit floor isn’t open? Doesn’t help DesignCon panels’ attendance, which has been paltry for years, seems to me.

Piyush Sancheti of Atrenta brings up a good point: for Ip to work as we envision it can, what players have to contribute to the quality effort? And what does each player type need to contribute? http://bit.ly/gpAHI1

I recently had a chance to talk with EDA veteran Jim Girand about what the Japanese market looked like for EDA and IP companies, especially startups. Jim has been in EDA since its inception. He’s been a sales executive with various EDA firms including SDA and Cadence, an angel investor, and continues to set up sales distribution channels in Japan for startups and mid-sized companies.

Ed: Jim, let me throw out an observation that may be totally off base. I say that a lot of the startups in our area bypass the Japanese market, preferring to get into the Chinese (mainland but also Taiwan) and Indian market first.

Jim: Well, Ed, I’m going to disagree with you there. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential upside to pursuing the Japanese market. The large electronic product companies do demand a lot from their design tool vendors but they also reward their vendors with loyalty and purchase orders. Of course the other Asian markets are potentially lucrative and will surely grab a larger percentage of the Asian TAM (total available market) over time. But the structure of Japanese sales has changed. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential upside to pursuing the Japanese market and Japan still has the largest EDA market overall among the Asia Pacific countries. The latest EDAC numbers show for Q3 2010, Japan alone was 18% of worldwide sales and all the rest of Asia Pacific combined excluding Japan was 21%.

Ed: Interesting. The distributors I knew of all seem to be gone except for Marubeni, Innotech and some smaller organizations. So let me ask: How has the Japan distribution channel structure changed in the past twenty years?Jim: Well, let me set context first. A historical perspective may illuminate why the Japan distribution channel has evolved to its current structure.
Traditionally, there were two choices; a full service trading organization that bought and resold EDA products or establishing a ‘K.K.’, a separate corporate entity staffed with local people dedicated to the supplier.

Ed: What’s the role of a trading organization?

Jim: So, the trading organization –– or distributor –– bought the EDA tools at a discount, marked up and resold them with a sizable margin. The margin covered currency translation, local sales and applications support, cost of collection and other costs such as marketing and administration. Often, the trading company would make a ‘pre-purchase’ to encourage the supplier to give good support to Japan and designate a part time applications engineer who would be trained to conduct demonstrations and evaluations. Further, these trading entities often had excellent reputations and high level relationships that helped the small EDA company get an introduction at the large customers. As the supplier matured and grew, he had a choice of getting the trading company to invest in more infrastructure or start a K.K, that could assume all or share sales and support responsibility.

Ed: I do remember that the distributors like SC Hytech and that group of smaller firms had great reputations for service and support.

Jim: So over time, users pushed harder for prices that were comparable to those in the U.S. They began to implicitly – if not explicitly – separate the services offered and assume responsibility for some or just do without. Sophisticated IDMs and systems companies concluded they could buy in U.S. dollars, and get early technical support from the headquarters, especially with advancing information technology that made it possible. In this high pressure environment that squeezed margins, some full service trading companies left the business and at the same time smaller, more flexible organizations and entrepreneurs took their place. Also, organizations such as those offering design services and local design automation tools added small U.S. suppliers to their suite of products.

Simply stated, competitive pressure starting from the end users has driven the Japan distribution channel, today, to be heterogeneous and have a wide variety of selling organizations. Also, not to be forgotten, EDA suppliers are designing their products so mere mortal circuit designers can use them – quickly. And technical support is oriented more toward the most sophisticated applications.

The end result of this evolution in the Japan distribution channel is all good. The end users will always demand and get superior EDA tools and support. Full service trading companies will have to demonstrate their infrastructure, long term high level relationships, local technical support and administration are efficient, a better local value than the end user getting these services piece meal.

Ed: And what of the sales rep?

Jim: Likewise, the independent sales representative must bring a persuasive contribution through the services he offers, beyond a good price, that will cause the end user to exert the extra effort to buy from him. And, going forward, we can be sure of one fact. The pressure on margins, the cost of sales, will only get stronger and felt from the local representative to deep into the supplier, driving all parties to be more efficient.

Ed: So what’s the effect of these changes for the small EDA vendor?

Jim: Now, from the perspective of the small EDA supplier seeking a distribution partner in Japan these changes in the channel structure can have profound effects. Namely, with a traditional trading company the sales development resources are ‘in country.’ You should have a designated sales manager who is responsible for the local infrastructure and getting your products introduced to the ‘A’ level end users. You will need to establish quotas, sales plans and be responsive when more advanced resources are requested.

At the other end of the spectrum, an individual sales representative will need much more guidance and particularly, technical support to help establish and successfully conduct evaluations. The supplier should plan on traveling to Japan often, perhaps once/quarter, make joint sales calls, conduct seminars and establish a corporate as well as technological identity with the end users. A much more active sales management role by the supplier is required here. At this time, there is no evidence whether the traditional trading company model is more effective than smaller organizations. More important, the supplier should think about the above considerations and choose an organization that will be compatible with his emerging culture.

Ed: Interesting, Jim. So there is no one formula on how to decide which works best for each type of company?

Jim: Not really. It depends on the considerations I mentioned earlier, plus the rapport established during the interview process, convergence of each organization’s interests, complementary product lines and existing relationships with prospective end users.

Ed: For those reader with questions, can they get hold of you?

Jim: Sure! I’d welcome their questions.

Ed: Jim, thanks for taking time to update us all on what’s going on in the Japanese distribution side of the EDA business.
…………………………………… Note: Jim Girand can be reached at jim@girand.com, website: www.girand.com.

Ron Craig, Senior Marketing Manager at Atrenta and an expert on the subject of timing constraints, was good enough to sit down with me (Liz Massingill) recently to talk about the subject—what the current problems are and how to fix them.This is the result of my interview with Ron.

Liz: Ron, I was shocked to see, in the survey you conducted, that 94% of designers have timing constraint problems that could stop their current designs dead in their tracks. But they also don’t see a way to change their current methodology. WHY?!?!?!?! Ron: There’s certainly no doubt that timing constraints remain and will continue to be a problem for design teams. The irony is that even though timing constraints are repeatedly an issue, most of these design teams feel that they know how to address all the problems that typically arise. It’s almost that the problems are viewed as less severe if the solutions are known.

Liz: Seems like the problem is more about changing the mindset.But why are designers running into increasing clock domain issues in the first place?Use of more IP? Process nodes going down to the next level? More complex designs?

Ron: The key culprit here seems to be IP. With IP, the functionality is reusable but the timing constraints are often not. Third party IP developers may well be experts in what the IP is supposed to do but not necessarily its implementation, leaving design teams with incomplete and inadequate timing constraints. On the other hand, IP reused from another design may well have been constrained in a way that’s not compatible with how you want to use it in your chip – especially if you need to change how the IP behaves. In today’s designs where IP amounts to 70% or more of a typical SoC, you end up with the constraint-driven implementation process becoming increasingly risky.

The process shrinks and more complex designs mean you simply can’t get away with having inadequate timing constraints anymore.

Liz: Well, what can they, ­or more appropriately, their project managers or internal CAD departments do about this increasing problem?

Ron: The key is to introduce more certainty into the whole process. Rather than taking an optimistic, or reactive approach to timing constraints, it makes a great deal of sense to put some effort in up-front to make sure that they are good. Many of our customers have noted that they simply can’t deal with the number of iterations it takes to refine timing constraints during the implementation phase of their projects, so they’re working on finalizing them up front as part of their RTL handoff. The trick for project managers or CAD people will be to introduce a methodology that their front end teams (who aren’t necessarily timing constraint experts) can easily adopt, and this is where comprehensive automated solutions such as SpyGlass-Constraints come into play.

Liz: So why isn’t this happening?Seems to me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

Ron: Let’s look at the two camps. First of all you have the RTL or front end team, who historically don’t want to take ownership of any part of the implementation process (even they know the design well enough to define its constraints). On the other side of that handoff ‘wall’ you have the back end team who feel that their expertise in this area, coupled with whatever the implementation and timing tools complain about, is enough of a solution. So depending on which side of that wall you sit on, you may feel that it’s either not your problem….or not a problem at all.

Liz: But we know there IS a problem, and it’ll only increase.So where in the design flow should project managers look first for a fix?

Ron: There is often a perception that timing constraints can’t be fully defined until you are actually using them – until you are in the thick of implementation or timing analysis. The problem with this is that your constraints end up being written so that you can close timing, instead of being defined to set the ground rules for timing closure. A classic example of this is the definition of timing exceptions – they’re often defined to mask timing violations, but in most cases they’re not exhaustively verified. A timing exception is a design characteristic, so can be defined and proven up-front before the implementation process even starts. It’s like an architect finalizing the plans after the building is complete. If your objectives aren’t clear how do you know when you are done?

Liz: I see what you are saying—it’s like putting the cart before the horse.Stop me, Ron, if I use another one of these old sayings.I’m dating myself. So who’s out there with technology that can help change the methodology and fix the timing disaster that’s looming?

Ron: It’s been possible to do some rudimentary timing constraint analysis in a range of implementation and STA tools since the advent of timing driven optimization. The problem with this approach, however, is that it’s largely a reactive one, and as a result doesn’t help reduce the risks in your implementation process. More recently, vendors (often ones outside the implementation/STA space) have started to provide solutions that allow the user to check the correctness of their constraints before implementation. What we’ve done with SpyGlass-Constraints is to take it one step further and look how timing constraint analysis is part of the bigger picture of reducing implementation risk. A great example of this is how we use our constraint verification methodology to ensure that data such as clock setup is in good shape before you use it to drive clock domain crossing (CDC) analysis. Again, it’s all about finding the issues up front and reducing risk later.

Liz: Well it’s intriguing…a Titanic-like iceberg of a design problem out there and we’re forging ahead…like the Titanic?

Ron: (laughs)Indeed – though given that the Titanic was built in my home city I always feel the need to point out that this particular disaster came about as a result of pilot error! To take your analogy further, I guess that the ‘iceberg’ here is a failure to close timing. Better guidance will definitely help you avoid that one.

Liz: Who knew?(laughs)Well, where can we learn more about this problem and how to fix it? Oh…and your customer survey…can we get a look at that?Sounds like some compelling information in there.

Ron: Yes, the customer survey was VERY telling and gives us a good leg up on what designers need to close at RTL for the next several generations of designs.In its current form, because we talked to customers, we can’t release it.

However, Bernard Murphy WILL refer to it at length in his DesignCon panel.

Liz: What panel is that?

Ron: At DesignCon we will be holding a panel on: “The Same Chip Killers keep Delaying your Schedules – What are you doing about it?” moderated by Ed Sperling, editor of System-Level Design. The panelists will discuss a broad range of issues, including timing constraints, the impact of IP etc. that repeatedly cause schedule slips. It will take place on Monday, January 31 at 4:45 p.m.

A couple of weeks ago, a client asked, in essence, “why comment on articles or blogs?”

OK, so he didn’t say it exactly like that. But he did say that he’s

…struggling to figure out what really makes sense regarding the growing amount of posting by anybody and everybody….Is all this writing and blogging serving a real purpose? I’m not sure. Some blogs get recognition and response….I think most don’t.

He’s got a point. I think bloggers (indie, company and editorial) all feel, in our gut, that there’s value. But how do we measure that value? What do comments add to a blog or article? Tough one.

So I asked some of the bloggers what they thought. First off, I went to one of the longest running bloggers in EDA – Karen Bartleson. (Is it really three years, Karen? She’s at http://www.synopsys.com/blogs/thestandardsgame). She shed really insightful light on why EDA blogs get so few comments, if we compare them to consumer blogs like Yelp. And, she has her blog up on what she’s seen in the three years since she started her blog. So do take a look at Karen’s analysis of EDA blogging. I bet she’s got a take on the state of EDA blog comments.

Karen’s, along with a bunch of other bloggers’ comments on EDA blog comments gave me some trends to ponder. Some recurring points:

__the honeymoon infatuation period for EDA blogging has come…and is going. Now there needs to be some sense of longterm value.

My take…just what is “value” in terms of EDA blogs? Different from perspectives of the client, journalist and PR person.

__some indie bloggers say they see their blogs as diaries, written for themselves and interested people.

My take…everyone is aware of a larger cast of potential viewers, however. (By and large, they value comments but don’t use it as a metric of their blog’s value.)

__there are more eyeballs on the blogs than we can ascertain.

My take… however, these numbers are impossible to get for viewers and bloggers hosted by other sites. There’s no SRDS* in the EDA & IP social media world.

*SRDS was (is?) an organization that certified reader numbers for print publications so that they could charge advertising rates based on readership.

__engineers by and large are pretty quiet, shy types who rarely will comment or extend a discussion, even if they do read the blog, article and their accompanying comments.

My take…this came up a lot. I’m not sure…would their shyness prevent them from commenting? Probably. Would the relatively anonymous filter of the comment field encourage them to speak out? Potentially.

__by and large, the number of comments aren’t an accurate measure of eyeballs.

My take…lots of agreement that some sort of metric on value is reasonable, understandable. Less agreement on whether it’s needed now.

(One person compared the dilemma to the old attempt to measure column inches to value, which measures volume but doesn’t take into account perceptual, qualitative value.)

__commenting is a lot like getting a quote into an editorially-written article insofar as creating an authoritative voice that gets recognized, over time, as an industry voice to listen to…or not, depending on the content of the comment).

My take…one especially insightful editorial blogger felt that comments are a dynamic part of a living, breathing article that encompasses new perspectives with new comments and discussion.

One difference that I see is that the editor or author of the article hasn’t vetted the comment or incorporated it into his or her article. The comment is a response to the vetted article, which is the insightful editorial blogger’s point, I now see.

__the blog (and blogger) or article (and author) and its comments, to some degree, form a community onto each of themselves.

My take…this discussion got a bit abstract for me but I hear the notion. Help!

__this is a good time to talk about the expectations of each community (indie bloggers, editorial bloggers, company bloggers) and how to sync up each community so that there is value for everyone.

My take…but it’ll require the different goals and expectations of each community to somehow sync up so that each community’s efforts bring value to one another. How does that sync up with goals and expectations of customers, clients?

Of course, there’s no answer (yet) to the question about value here. The bloggers (indie, company and editorial) feel that there is value in commenting. Many of them agree that no one can measure value right now but that there ought to be some way to do so. Most everyone thinks that there is an existing, intangible value of being a voice of authority, an industry citizen.

This is the 2nd part of my interview with Joe Gianelli, VP of Marketing and Business Development of the new start up…..InPA Systems.

Liz: Joe, can you give us a little bit of background on InPA’s founders, ThomasHuang and Michael Chang?

Joe:Both Tom and Michael are longtime EDA entrepreneurs, having founded a number of startups, bringing to InPA a wealth of expertise in logic emulation, rapid prototyping and RTL verification.

Tom is probably best known as a co-founder and CTO of PiE Design Systems.He continued on with Quickturn when it acquired PiE.He was also EVP and CTO of Aptix, a rapid prototyping company, and founded several other companies in the emulation and ATE areas.

Michael was a co-founder, CEO and president of Verplex, a formal verification company that was acquired by Cadence.At Cadence he served as VP and GM of the formal verification group.Michael also founded Checklogic, which was acquired by Mentor.

Liz: And how about yourself?What is your background?

Joe:I was involved in the successful launch and acquisition of Taray just before joining InPA.I have spent my entire career in EDA, making the rounds from Synopsys to Epic Design to Meta Software and to Cadence.I was at Synplicity for 10 years, where I was VP of Business Development.

Liz: That’s an impressive combination of experience and expertise thatyou all bring to the table.Did I notice some high profile names on your advisory board?